Mexico to have a 'voice' in US Immigration law

[SteamWake]

Yep you read that right...


Mexico gets its a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico's request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/judge-lets-mexico-voice-immigration-law/

[tater]

Insanity.

[conus00]

Unbelievable!

"But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence."

Diplomatically put. Let's just lift the veil:
"racial profiling" - if you are in the USA, barely speaking language and you get pulled over diving a vehicle which is clearly in your name and you cannot produce valid US driver's license your immigration background check should be next logical step.

"hinder trade and tourism" - this one made me laugh. I'm afraid that 99.9% of Mexican citizens cannot AFFORD vacation in the USA, they are barely surviving in Mexico. So that leaves 0.1% who are actually visiting here.
Tourists should have no problem producing, upon request, their passports with valid B1/B2 visa.

"strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence" - I'm at loss on this one, can somebody explain to me how is checking immigration background gonna HINDER this??? :nope:

Overall, there is very simple solution, make a law (and strictly enforce it) that will require ANYBODY to carry either EAD card, I-551 card (green card) along with US issued driver's license in case of immigrants/workers or valid foreign passport with B1/B2 visa with departure stamp.
Plain and simple. (I'd have no problem carrying mine around)


"Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers..."

Why not?

"The law's provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally"

100% agree

[Platapus]

oh noes! :o:o

Mexico will be allowed to prepare a document!

Oh noes! :o:o

And a judge will read it?

Oh noes! :o:o

It's a brief. It is just a position paper that the judge will read. It does not mandate any action nor does it affect the court's duty. It is a piece of information, not an attack. Just an opinion on an issue. The judge can place any importance he or she wants or does not want on this brief.

What exactly is fox news trying to get people spun up about this time? :shifty:

[Ducimus]

F*ck Mexico. Get your citizens out of my country.

[Tribesman]

Since it is by nature an interational issue is there any way Mexico should not have a voice?

"racial profiling" - if you are in the USA, barely speaking language
There is no requirement for american citizens to speak english so language doesn't avoid the constitutional problem over profiling.

Why not?

Because they can't, though thats irrelevant as the new law doesn't allow for it either.


F*ck Mexico. Get your citizens out of my country.

For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

[AVGWarhawk]

Since it is by nature an interational issue is there any way Mexico should not have a voice?


There is no requirement for american citizens to speak english so language doesn't avoid the constitutional problem over profiling.


Because they can't, though thats irrelevant as the new law doesn't allow for it either.


For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

1. No
2. Do not care...English is the primary language.
3. I think the new law should allow for more.
4. Not really, saying F*uck relieves some stress. Beside, golly gee whizzy just does not get it anymore. We need no agreement with Mexico. Just a bigger fence.

Let's send'em your way! :03:

[SteamWake]

oh noes! :o:o

Mexico will be allowed to prepare a document!

Oh noes! :o:o

And a judge will read it?

Oh noes! :o:o

It's a brief. It is just a position paper that the judge will read. It does not mandate any action nor does it affect the court's duty. It is a piece of information, not an attack. Just an opinion on an issue. The judge can place any importance he or she wants or does not want on this brief.

What exactly is fox news trying to get people spun up about this time? :shifty:

Oh noes.. the judge will consider the brief meaning he will consider it when adjucating.

[Ducimus]

For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

Since when did we need mexico's approval to secure OUR borders to OUR country? Screw them.

[Tribesman]

1. No

On what possible grounds coukld you even consider that as correct?
2. Do not care...English is the primary language.

Tell that to a judge:rotfl2:
3. I think the new law should allow for more.

So you are saying F*ck the US constitution.
4. Not really, saying F*uck relieves some stress. Beside, golly gee whizzy just does not get it anymore. We need no agreement with Mexico. Just a bigger fence.

How do you work a border without an agreement?
Let's send'em your way!
Well done, now you need new agreement with both Mexico and Ireland:har::har::har::har::har:

Since when did we need mexico's approval to secure OUR borders to OUR country?
So you don't know what a border is then

[AVGWarhawk]

On what possible grounds coukld you even consider that as correct?

Tell that to a judge:rotfl2:

So you are saying F*ck the US constitution.

How do you work a border without an agreement?

Well done, now you need new agreement with both Mexico and Ireland:har::har::har::har::har:


So you don't know what a border is then

1. Coffee grounds
2. I can't he speaks only Spanish
3. Yes, I'm jumping on the band wagon concerning the Constitution
4. With fully automatic weapons.
5. No we don't. A large fence will make them go around and straight to Ireland. Leaving the US out of it.

Have a great day. :DL

[Ducimus]

So you don't know what a border is then

Actually, i do.

http://www.greenkorea.org/zb/icon/member_image_box/22/gkreport05_0102.jpg
http://visitasiaguide.com/visit-korea/pics-korea/south-korea-dmz.jpghttp://www.knowledgenews.net/picturethis/dmz.jpg

I've been there in fact.

[Tribesman]

Actually, i do.

Is that why you just posted 3 pictures of something that isn't a border?:har::har::har::har::har::har:

1. Coffee grounds
2. I can't he speaks only Spanish
3. Yes, I'm jumping on the band wagon concerning the Constitution
4. With fully automatic weapons.
5. No we don't. A large fence will make them go around and straight to Ireland. Leaving the US out of it.

So you do understand that your initial post was nonsense, well done.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah...these are borders :stare:

http://z.about.com/d/scrapbooking/1/0/4/6/borders2.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Is that why you just posted 3 pictures of something that isn't a border?:har::har::har::har::har::har:


So you do understand that your initial post was nonsense, well done.

I was just mimicking most of what your posts entail....nonsense. :up: Have a nice weekend!

[Ducimus]

Is that why you just posted 3 pictures of something that isn't a border?

No, i think it is you who do not understand the meaning of a border, and maintaining that border, a sovereign border, against unwanted and illegal incursions. Your not from the US anyway, your opinion means squat to me on this subject.


Keep on...
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/114526/trollin.jpg

[ivank]

No, i think it is you who do not understand the meaning of a border, and maintaining that border, a sovereign border, against unwanted and illegal incursions. Your not from the US anyway, your opinion means squat to me on this subject.


Keep on...
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/114526/trollin.jpg

:rotfl2::har:

[Tribesman]

No, i think it is you who do not understand the meaning of a border, and maintaining that border, a sovereign border, against unwanted and illegal incursions. Your not from the US anyway, your opinion means squat to me on this subject.


Yet it was you who posted pictures of demilitarized zone which contains a military demarcation line and said it was a border, so your opinion on borders means squat no matter where you come from as apparently you don't even know what a border is:up:

[Ducimus]

Yet it was you who posted pictures of demilitarized zone which contains a military demarcation line and said it was a border, so your opinion on borders means squat no matter where you come from as apparently you don't even know what a border is:up:


What i was implying in two different posts flew about 60,000 feet over your head at a speed of mach3. Keep on baiting with literal ignorance if you want, but you've already become boring. Your Troll Fu is weak.

[Tribesman]

What i was implying in two different posts flew about 60,000 feet over your head at a speed of mach3.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Is that why you just posted 3 pictures of something that isn't a border?

And to make it even funnier in your ignorance not only did you post thing that isn't a border but is a thing that is part of an agreement with the people on the other side of the fence so its a double fail.

[Onkel Neal]

What i was implying in two different posts flew about 60,000 feet over your head at a speed of mach3. Keep on baiting with literal ignorance if you want, but you've already become boring. Your Troll Fu is weak.

Very weak. :shucks:

Anyway, Mexico needs to stay out of our business. Mexicans have a whole country to themselves, and it's a big mess. We don't need 10 million new citizens from Mexico.

[gimpy117]

Let put ourselves in their shoes. If it was the reverse (and by the grace of god it's not) Our government would be obligated to make sure our citizens are being protected abroad.

[Onkel Neal]

Not if our citizens were entering a country illegally. Illegal.

[Sailor Steve]

It's okay Neal. A lot of folks don't remember the Iran hostage crisis. Iranians started protesting against the US...here in the US. The government offered to give them all a free ride home, and Liberals compared it to the Japanese-American interment in WW2. It's not like we want to shoot all the illegals. Well, most of us don't anyway.

[gimpy117]

Not if our citizens were entering a country illegally. Illegal.

so? were still obligated to protect our citizens. We still have embassies. By that rationale, if i committed a crime in Canada our government would just lock me out of our embassy and say "go at it boys" to the Canadian police. No country truly leaves it's citizens out in the cold when they are abroad, and what mexico is doing is no exception. they will continue to support their citizens like we would in any way until they are charged with a crime. Then i'm sure they will cooperate with out justice system.

[Sailor Steve]

so? were still obligated to protect our citizens. We still have embassies. By that rationale, if i committed a crime in Canada our government would just lock me out of our embassy and say "go at it boys" to the Canadian police. No country truly leaves it's citizens out in the cold when they are abroad, and what mexico is doing is no exception. they will continue to support their citizens like we would in any way until they are charged with a crime. Then i'm sure they will cooperate with out justice system.
And that is a well-reasoned answer. :sunny:

[Captain Vlad]

Are you guys yelling '**** Mexico' over a legal brief serious or are you just having fun with a troll? Because you know I could easily post some pedantry explaining the purposes of a legal brief (which someone already mentioned...), relate the fact that the US would certainly make our opinion known if the position were reversed and that we'd have every right too, etc. etc.

And you know I'd be right, because you know what I mean already, or at least some of you appear to.

But if you're just toying with Gumby and his somewhat lame attempts to be provocative, I won't bother.:DL

[Ducimus]

Want to know how bad illegal immigration is? Aside from the 50 some odd Mexicans standing outside of EVERY Home depot in California?

When half the crap solicitors leave on your car window or front door is in freaking Spanish. Not that i care for what they're peddling anyway, but i think it seriously says something half the business or calling cards you encounter aren't even in English anymore.

I'm left wondering if people that are living in states that don't share a border with Mexico truly understand how out of control illegal immigration is. I've been to other states that don't share said border, and comparitively, you only see 10% of the BS you do here. So i imagine things may seem hunky dory when it's not.

[Captain Vlad]

If it isn't as evident in states not on the Mexican border then...it's not as out of control as some folks like to say it is.

But even if it was, I got no problem with our neighboring country letting us know what their opinion on the matter is in an official fashion. Again, we certainly would let them know. It doesn't mean we have to base our decision on what they have to say.

A brief is just Mexico's opinion on the matter, and as they are directly involved in the immigration issue, their opinion should be considered, even if it's not granted primary (or even tertiary...) importance.

[Tribesman]

Anyway, Mexico needs to stay out of our business. Mexicans have a whole country to themselves, and it's a big mess.
Anything involving Mexican citizens or the US/Mexican border is Mexicos business, no two ways about it.

Want to know how bad illegal immigration is?
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?
You still can't really do anything about the illegal immigrants without the involvement of your neighbouring country as a border is involved.
When there isn't a border between the two states it gets more complicated, like with Haitian illegal immigrants to the US as an example, it still requires the involvement of both states.

If it was the reverse (and by the grace of god it's not) Our government would be obligated to make sure our citizens are being protected abroad.
Exactly, if an American was illegaly in Canada the legal process would involve the Canadian and US governments.

A lot of folks don't remember the Iran hostage crisis. Iranians started protesting against the US...here in the US. The government offered to give them all a free ride home
Interesting, thats the first time I got stuck in America.
So in relation to this issue how would the government have given a free ride home without first coming to a legal agreement with the mad mullahs over repatriation?

So really it does make you wonder about the nature of the topic when it starts as....
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/subscribed.gif Mexico to have a 'voice' in US Immigration law (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171804)
...yet you wouldn't be able to find any example where Mexico has not had a voice in US immigration laws where they relate to Mexican citizens or the Mexican border.

[Zachstar]

Why when I see a topic like this I look and see the op is steamwake?

Geezus people it is a document on Mexico's position in the matter. Of course those on the right foaming at the mouth to blame their issues on illegal immigrants are going to go ape over it. As for subsim I say in my opinion this is another silly topic.

[Zachstar]

Want to know how bad illegal immigration is? Aside from the 50 some odd Mexicans standing outside of EVERY Home depot in California?

When half the crap solicitors leave on your car window or front door is in freaking Spanish. Not that i care for what they're peddling anyway, but i think it seriously says something half the business or calling cards you encounter aren't even in English anymore.

I'm left wondering if people that are living in states that don't share a border with Mexico truly understand how out of control illegal immigration is. I've been to other states that don't share said border, and comparitively, you only see 10% of the BS you do here. So i imagine things may seem hunky dory when it's not.

Oh dear god some paper on the windshield in spanish = DOOM!!!

Seriously is that your best example?

[krashkart]

What is in the legalese of Mexico's tit-for-tat response to Arizona's law that is so infuriating? I'm not buying this idea I'm getting that America is the only country that should have rights.

[Tribesman]

What is in the legalese of Mexico's tit-for-tat response to Arizona's law that is so infuriating?
There is no tit for tat yet, though currently Arizona has an announced policy which means it is basicly going to be stuck with paying the upkeep for any illegals it catches for the rest of their natural lives.
Thats the problem with issues like illegal immigration, emotions take over and you get crazy responses which are devoid of thought.

[SteamWake]

Why when I see a topic like this I look and see the op is steamwake?

Geezus people it is a document on Mexico's position in the matter. Of course those on the right foaming at the mouth to blame their issues on illegal immigrants are going to go ape over it. As for subsim I say in my opinion this is another silly topic.

Because I like to highlight idiocy within our goverment no one said you had to participate. If you feel the topic is silly just move on. ;)

[Tribesman]

Because I like to highlight idiocy within our goverment no one said you had to participate.
So you do so be putting out a story about something that has always happened and will always happen and seem to think its a new thing???????

If you feel the topic is silly just move on
It is the silliness of your topic that makes it worth it.
It's the fact that you wrote about the shock of Mexico going to be having a "voice" on an issue when it always has had and always will have.

[tater]

Mexico didn't always have a say. Mexico only has a say if the judge accepts their brief. The judge could also have said that he didn't care what Mexico's opinion was, they have no particular right to have a voice in the lawsuit at all, only a right to submit a brief—not that it would be heard.

[tater]

More goodness from Andy McCarthy:
United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?
Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

[iambecomelife]

Mexico didn't always have a say. Mexico only has a say if the judge accepts their brief. The judge could also have said that he didn't care what Mexico's opinion was, they have no particular right to have a voice in the lawsuit at all, only a right to submit a brief—not that it would be heard.


Good point - and a good rebuttal to the people posting nonsense about "right wingers going ape" to try and obscure the issue.

In certain cases it could be a violation of Professional Responsibility to waste the court's time with irrelevant documents (although i don't think this would not apply if it's Mexican counsel preparing the brief). Either way this is very bad form on Mexico's part.

Also, Just because you CAN use a litigation tactic doesn't mean you should. Judges are free to use their discretion to punish tactics that, are professionally inappropriate, even if they do not technically violate State or Federal Procedure.

Not that the pro-illegals care anyway - Mexico's position is that it should be able to abet lawbreaking with no consequences.